RE: [Algorithms] rather curious

[Steve W. <Ste...@im...>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Akbar A. [mailto:sye...@ea...]
> 
> hey,
> i am just wondering, but how many people know about *this*
> "gravity isn't really a force" and that it is caused by the 
> curvature in the
> space time fabric.
> 

This is very interesting...for a FPS where the player travels on the surface
of a planet then gravity is best applied as a constant force.  Algorithms
become much more interesting (as does any game) when the player is traveling
slowely near many large gravitational masses (like an asteroid belt) or
traveling near light speed.  I'll present some of my thoughts...please don't
think they are facts or that I read them in a book...they are my thoughts
and I know they are different from what is taught in schools or has been
offered to the public as explanations.

When gravity is applied to a mass then it will be a applied as a force and
gravity can be thought of as a 3D force field which can be displayed
graphically as a curvature in 2D space.  In 3D, gravity is more like a
spacial density which is disturbed by the presence of mass so it's not
really a force or a curvature in the space time fabric, but the effect of
the presence of a mass in an area of variant density.  For example if there
was no mass at all...only space...then there would be no gravity so it
really doesn't have anything to do with space itself.  Also, time doesn't
exist so time isn't even an attribute of space.

> And, if you drop two objects in a vacuum they *really* don't fall
> at the same rate (difference is very small, order of 10^-24) 
> <this *makes
> sense*>
> why don't more people know this?
> 

Mass disturbs a gravity field which in turn applies a force proportional to
the mass so there would be absolutely no difference in an ideal situation.
I'd say 10^-24 in error would be a VERY efficient experiment and the
difference is the error from apperatus and calculations, and not an actually
proof that two objects fall as different speeds.  Also, in an experiment
with THAT precision performed on Earth it would require including the
gravity fields of the Sun, Moon, and any other significant mass where G
((m1*m2)/r^2)/m2 is in the order of 10^-24.

Also, something to think about concerning relativity is when an object
passes through a gravity field so fast that the gravity field does not have
time to effect the mass that disturbed that space (it takes time for an
effect to occur in a cause/effect relationship) and results in gravitational
force being applied to a very small or zero mass and of course a nice
mushroom cloud. I believe Einsteins theories have been grossly
misunderstood...time isn't lost or gained near the speed of light (anyone
here belive in time travel?), and mass is not lost or gained (it's just not
available for measurement)...just that the effect from the gravitational
field depends on whether an object's relative velocity is faster than the
effect can be applied. You might also ponder how G and c are constants and
that c = 1/50G (ignoring units of course).  And, yes I've done some work on
created a new constant and an equation that links F = G ((m1*m2)/r^2)/m2 and
E = mc^2 that can provide empirical data to substatiate my theories.
Actually I think G or the speed of light has been mis-quoted by a factor of
10 and the actual relationship is G=2c where c^2 is a function describing
the position of a mass 2c is the function describing the rate at which it
changed position after disturbing the gravity field.  I wish I had more time
for this, but time is money and nobody is paying me for this stuff.

Well, none of that ever got me an ear at NASA or Sandia Labs so I never got
an offer to allow me to develop an experiment to test my theories using the
super colliders or particle plasma tools; so it hasn't done me any good
exept to allow me a better understanding of gravity.

Rockn-Roll